Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36831
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Anand Pathak, B. P. Sharma, JJ
Vijendra Singh Rawat – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 18568 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Departmental Inquiry
Act Referred
Headnote
Key Points: - The case involves a writ petition filed by an appellant against the state and others (!) . - The matter was decided on 24-06-2026 (!) . - The jurisdiction of the court is the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (!) . - The case is categorized under a Supreme (Online) reference (!) . - The subject matter relates to the conduct of state authorities in relation to the appellant’s rights (!) . - The decision addresses the legal issues raised in the writ petition (!) . - The case is formally recorded as VIJENDRA SINGH RAWAT vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS (!) . - The procedural status indicates this is an appeal or review proceeding in the high court (!) . - The judgment outcome resolves the dispute in favor of one party as determined by the court (!) . - The case highlights the role of judicial oversight over state action in administrative or legal disputes (!) .
What is the nature of the dispute between the appellant and the state?
What are the key facts of the case as determined by the court?
What relief or outcome was decided by the court?
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Narendra Chouhan
For the Respondents: Kanak Gaharwar, Khalid Noor Fakhruddin
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of disciplinary proceedings under rule 14 for judicial misconduct. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. delay in issuing charge-sheet does not invalidate proceedings without proof of actual prejudice. (Para 4 , 6 , 12) |
| 3. simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings are legally permissible. (Para 5 , 13) |
| 4. limited scope of judicial review at the charge-sheet stage. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petition and liberty to proceed with inquiry. (Para 16) |
ORDER
Per: Justice B. P. Sharma :
The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the legality and propriety of the charge-sheet/show cause notice dated 19.12.2025, issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiction under Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1966"). The petitioner seeks quashment of the departmental proceedings initiated pursuant thereto on the ground that they have been commenced during the pendency of a criminal prosecution arising out of the same set of facts.
2. The petitioner is a member of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as V Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore. Certain allegations came to the notice of the High Court in relation to Criminal Trial No.1621/2019 titled State Vs. Santosh Verma. The allegations, in substance, were that a judgment dated 06.10.2020 showing acquittal of accused Santosh Verma was prepared and brought into existence despite the fact that the criminal case was still pending and had not been legally disposed of. It was further alleged that the said act was committed in furtherance of a conspiracy to confer undue advantage upon the accused. Santosh Verma who was supposed to receive the IAS award, but it was not possible for him to get it due to pendency of criminal case. Such conduct amounted to grave misconduct, abuse of judicial office and failure to maintain the integrity expected from a judicial officer.
3. The matter was subjected to vigilance scrutiny by the High Court on its administrative side. After collection and examination of the relevant material, the disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge-sheet dated 19.12.2025 came to be issued under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. The charge-sheet contains specific articles of charge accompanied by statement of imputations, list of documents and list of witnesses has been issued against him. The disciplinary authority also appointed an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer for conducting the enquiry in accordance with law. Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned charge-sheet deserves to be quashed primarily on account of gross and unexplained delay. It is contended that the alleged incident pertains to the year 2020 whereas the charge-sheet has been issued only in December, 2025. According to the petitioner, initiation of disciplinary proceedings after such a long period is unreasonable and violative of principles of fairness. It is submitted that because of the passage of time, the petitioner has suffered serious prejudice in collecting relevant evidence and defending himself effectively in the inquiry.
5. It is further argued that the criminal prosecution and the departmental proceedings are founded upon the same transaction and substantially identical allegations. Learned counsel submitted that the witnesses, documents and evidence in both proceedings are common and, therefore, continuation of departmental proceedings would seriously prejudice the defence of the petitioner in the criminal trial.
